https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105057 Penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable against the courier company because its employees' concealment and attempted clearance of auto parts for personal gain were not shown to be authorised by, or attributable to, the company itself. The individual appellant's penalty was upheld because the record established his active role in procuring, financing, clearing, and disposing of smuggled computer parts. Cancellation of courier registration under Regulation 17(c) of the Courier Imports (Clearance) Regulations, 1995 was set aside, as it was founded on the unsustained penalty order and could not be applied retrospectively to conduct predating the Regulations. en-us Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:59:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105057 Penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable against the courier company because its employees' concealment and attempted clearance of auto parts for personal gain were not shown to be authorised by, or attributable to, the company itself. The individual appellant's penalty was upheld because the record established his active role in procuring, financing, clearing, and disposing of smuggled computer parts. Cancellation of courier registration under Regulation 17(c) of the Courier Imports (Clearance) Regulations, 1995 was set aside, as it was founded on the unsustained penalty order and could not be applied retrospectively to conduct predating the Regulations. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105057